A comparative analysis of reproductive performance of different pig breeds under intensive management systems in sub-tropical climate

P P GOKULDAS; M K TAMULI; N H MOHAN; K BARMAN; N R SAHOO

doi:10.56093/ijans.v85i9.51753

Authors

P P GOKULDAS Scientist, ICAR-National Research Centre on Pig, Rani, Guwahati, Asom 781 131 India
M K TAMULI Principal Scientist, Animal Reproduction Division, ICAR-National Research Centre on Pig, Rani, Guwahati, Asom 781 131 India
N H MOHAN Senior Scientist, Animal Physiology Division, ICAR-National Research Centre on Pig, Rani, Guwahati, Asom 781 131 India
K BARMAN Senior Scientist, Animal Nutrition Division. ICAR-National Research Centre on Pig, Rani, Guwahati, Asom 781 131 India
N R SAHOO Scientist, Division of Animal Genetics, IVRI, Izatnagar

https://doi.org/10.56093/ijans.v85i9.51753

Keywords:

Breed, Intensive management system, Reproductive performance, Sows

Abstract

A comparative study was undertaken to evaluate the reproductive performance of various pig breeds reared under intensive system of rearing in sub-tropical climate. Trends in reproductive performance were studied in different breeds with respect to age at puberty and first fertile service, weaning to estrus interval (WEI), farrowing interval, litter size and farrowing indices. Analysis of data revealed earlier age at puberty in Ghungroo (7.8±0.41 months) and crossbred pigs (7.86±0.17 months). Correspondingly, age at first fertile service were earlier in crossbred sows (8.94±0.16 months) and Ghungroo (9.3±0.43 months). In general, an extended WEI could be observed in all breeds and the delay was more pronounced in primiparous compared to multiparous sows. Litter size at birth was significantly higher in Ghungroo (8.7±0.25) and crossbreds [HS × GH (8.5±0.48) and HS × NM (8.2±0.55)] in comparison to other groups. Average numbers of piglets weaned per sow were significantly higher in Ghungroo sows and its crosses. Average pre-weaning mortality was found to be significantly lower in crossbreds with Hampshire-desi crosses having the lowest rate (2.94%). Out of all groups, crossbreds had a higher farrowing index value of 2.01 while indigenous breeds had a relatively lower farrowing index (1.72). Significant influences of different genetic groups on various reproductive variables were observed in the present study while environmental factors and selection practices also appeared to contribute overall variations in the reproductive performance.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Ate I and Oyedipe U. 2011. Sow reproductive performance in institutional herds in Benue State, Nigeria. Journal of Reproduction and Infertility 2(2): 24–31.

Castagna C D, Peixoto C H, Bortolozzo F P, Wentz I, Neto G B and Ruschel F. 2004. Ovarian cysts and their consequences on the reproductive performance of swine herds. Animal Reproduction Science 81: 115–23. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anireprosci.2003.08.004

Chu M X. 2005. Statistical analysis of stillbirths in different genotypes of sows. Asian-Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 18(10): 1475–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.2005.1475

Kongsted A G. 2006. Relation between reproduction performance and indicators of feed intake, fear and social stress in commercial herds with group-housed non-lactating sows. Livestock Science 101: 46–56. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livprodsci.2005.09.011

Kumaresan A, Bujarbaruah K M, Pathak K A, Chhetri B, Das S K, Das A and Ahmed S K. 2007. Performance of pigs reared under traditional tribal low input production system and chemical composition of non-conventional tropical plants used as pig feed. Livestock Science 107: 294–98. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.livsci.2006.12.007

Kumari B P, Rao D S and Ravi A. 2008. Genetic and non-genetic factors affecting the litter traits in desi and crossbred pigs. Indian Veterinary Journal 85: 170–72.

Murugkar H V. 1999. Diagnosis and control of piglet mortality. Annual Report 1998–99. ICAR-NEH, Barapani, Meghalaya, pp. 30.

Pal P P, Naskar N and Kumar R. 2000. Performance assessment of introduced technology in livestock productivity. Annual Report 2000–01. ICAR-NEH, Barapani, Meghalaya, pp. 41.

Petry D B and Johnson R K. 2004. Responses to 19 generations of litter size selection in the Nebraska Index line. I. Reproductive responses estimated in pure line and crossbred litters. Journal of Animal Science 82: 1000–06. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.8241000x

Prakash M G, Ravi A, Kumari B P and Srinivasrao D. 2008. Reproductive and productive performance of crossbred pigs. Indian Journal of Animal Sciences 78: 1291–97.

Saiprasanna J, Gnanaprakash M, Gupta B R and Mahender M. 2009. Genetic study on reproductive traits in crossbred pigs. Livestock Research for Rural Development 21: 142–47.

Skorjanc D, Hohler M and Brus M. 2008. Effect of backfat loss during lactation on weaning-to-oestrus interval of sows at gonadotropin application. Archiv fur Tierzucht 51: 560–71. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5194/aab-51-560-2008

Svetina A, Vrabac L, Belic M and Turk R. 2006. Relation between erythrocyte parameters and stillbirth in piglets. Veterinary Archives 76(4): 297–303.

Tochhawng L and Rewani S K. 2013. Constraint analysis of backyard pig farming in tribal areas of Mizoram. Indian Research Journal of Extension Education 13(2): 123–25.